0

The full content of Annals is available to subscribers

Subscribe/Learn More  >
Articles |

Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in Asymptomatic Women Attending Family Planning Clinics: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Three Strategies

M. Rene Howell, MA; Thomas C. Quinn, MD; and Charlotte A. Gaydos, DrPH
[+] Article and Author Information

From Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland; and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. Acknowledgments: The authors thank Wayne Brathwaite, Nicole Novak, Samantha Johnston, and the family planning clinicians for their support. Requests for Reprints: M. Rene Howell, MA, Johns Hopkins University, Division of Infectious Diseases, Ross Research Building, Room 1159, 720 Rutland Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21205. Current Author Addresses: Ms. Howell and Drs. Quinn and Gaydos: Johns Hopkins University, Division of Infectious Diseases, Ross Research Building, Room 1159, 720 Rutland Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21205.


Copyright ©2004 by the American College of Physicians


Ann Intern Med. 1998;128(4):277-284. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-128-4-199802150-00005
Text Size: A A A

Background: Screening women for Chlamydia trachomatis in family planning clinics is associated with a reduced incidence of chlamydial sequelae. However, the question of whom to screen to maintain efficient use of resources remains controversial.

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of chlamydial screening done according to three sets of criteria in asymptomatic women attending family planning clinics.

Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis done by using a decision model with the perspective of a health care system. Model estimates were based on analysis of cohort data, clinic costs, laboratory costs, and published data.

Setting: Two family planning clinics in Baltimore, Maryland.

Patients: 7699 asymptomatic women who presented between April 1994 and August 1996.

Intervention: Three screening strategies-screening according to the criteria of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), screening all women younger than 30 years of age, and universal screening-were retrospectively applied and compared. All women were tested with polymerase chain reaction.

Measurements: Medical outcomes included sequelae prevented in women, men, and infants. Total costs included screening program costs and future medical costs of all sequelae. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of each strategy were calculated.

Results: Without screening, 152 cases of pelvic inflammatory disease would occur at a cost of $676 000. Screening done by using the CDC criteria would prevent 64 cases of pelvic inflammatory disease at a cost savings of $231 000. Screening all women younger than 30 years of age would prevent an additional 21 cases of pelvic inflammatory disease and save $74 000. Universal screening would prevent an additional 6 cases of pelvic inflammatory disease but would cost $19 000 more than age-based screening, or approximately $3000 more per case of pelvic inflammatory disease prevented. If the prevalence of C. trachomatis is more than 10.2% or if less than 88.5% of infections occur in women younger than 30 years of age, universal screening provides the greatest cost savings.

Conclusions: These results suggest that age-based screening provides the greatest cost savings of the three strategies examined. However, universal screening is desirable in some situations. In general, screening done by using any criteria and a highly sensitive diagnostic assay should be part of any chlamydial prevention and control program or health plan.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1.
Cost-effectiveness of age-based screening and universal screening at various prevalences of chlamydial infection.

Curve = (universal screening $) −(age-based screening $)/(universal testing pelvic inflammatory disease) −(age-based screening pelvic inflammatory disease). As the prevalence of chlamydial infection increases, the age-based screening strategy becomes less cost-saving relative to universal screening. At prevalences greater than 10.2%, universal screening prevents more disease and provides more cost savings than age-based screening. The break-even prevalence for all screening is 1.1%; this is the point at which screening by any criteria ceases to provide cost savings. PID = pelvic inflammatory disease.

Grahic Jump Location
Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2.
Screening strategy recommendations based on different prevalences of chlamydial infection and different sensitivities of age-based screening.

The line represents the break-even values for prevalence of chlamydial infection and sensitivity of age-based screening, where age-based screening and universal screening provide the same cost savings. For example, at prevalences greater than 4.5%, where age-based screening fails to identify more than 82.2% of infections occurring in the population, universal screening provides greater cost savings than age-based screening.

Grahic Jump Location

Tables

References

Letters

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Comments

Submit a Comment
Submit a Comment

Summary for Patients

Clinical Slide Sets

Terms of Use

The In the Clinic® slide sets are owned and copyrighted by the American College of Physicians (ACP). All text, graphics, trademarks, and other intellectual property incorporated into the slide sets remain the sole and exclusive property of the ACP. The slide sets may be used only by the person who downloads or purchases them and only for the purpose of presenting them during not-for-profit educational activities. Users may incorporate the entire slide set or selected individual slides into their own teaching presentations but may not alter the content of the slides in any way or remove the ACP copyright notice. Users may make print copies for use as hand-outs for the audience the user is personally addressing but may not otherwise reproduce or distribute the slides by any means or media, including but not limited to sending them as e-mail attachments, posting them on Internet or Intranet sites, publishing them in meeting proceedings, or making them available for sale or distribution in any unauthorized form, without the express written permission of the ACP. Unauthorized use of the In the Clinic slide sets will constitute copyright infringement.

Toolkit

Buy Now

to gain full access to the content and tools.

Want to Subscribe?

Learn more about subscription options

Advertisement
Related Articles
Related Point of Care
Topic Collections
PubMed Articles
Forgot your password?
Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.
(Required)
(Required)